Appealability of public examination orders affirmed; appeal dismissed and examination limited to director's tenure.

Order directing public examination of directors under the Companies Act is appealable as an order within the scope of Section 202; the District Judge's ex parte direction was supported by prima facie material including allegations of fraud, allotment for promissory notes and an articles prohibition on lending on bank shares, and therefore justified. Ex parte issuance does not breach any specific notice requirement for a Section 196 application. Where resignation is pleaded, the examining court must confine inquiry to matters relevant to the period the director remained in office. The appeal was dismissed and the examination retained with the stated limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the District Judge's ex parte order directing the public examination of the appellant and other directors under the Companies Act could be appealed and whether such an order was justified on the materials before the Court.

Analysis: The order under challenge is an appealable order within the scope of Section 202 of the Companies Act as it falls within the class of orders directing public examination of directors. The Official Liquidator's application alleged that fraud had been committed and that allotment of shares in consideration of promissory notes occurred; these allegations, together with the prohibition on lending on bank shares in the articles of association, supply sufficient material to raise a prima facie case. The fact that the order was passed ex parte does not contravene any rule requiring prior notice for applications under Section 196. Where resignation is asserted, the scope of examination is to be confined to matters relevant to the period for which the director remained in office.

Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed; the order directing public examination is held to be appealable and justified on the prima facie materials, subject to the District Judge confining examination to matters pertinent to the appellant's period of directorship.

---